Europe’s Russia denial

Though it still seems counterintuitive to many, the risk of war in Europe has not been this high since the end of the Cold War. Nor have the leaders of Europe’s largest powers been in this much denial about Vladimir Putin’s political objective — the restoration of Russia’s sphere of influence — or how quickly the war in Ukraine could morph into a larger conflict along the continent’s northeastern flank.

Despite tough rhetoric and repeated warnings to Putin from NATO’s leadership, most of Europe’s capitals and Washington about what would happen should he try to stir trouble beyond NATO’s red line, the overall level of military readiness in Europe to respond to a rapidly escalating crisis remains inadequate. After years of defense cuts, the European allies are now in a situation where they provide barely a quarter of NATO’s military capabilities, with a number of countries unable to operate outside their national territories — a sine qua non of allied response in a contingency.

There can be no denying that Europe’s overall military weakness has played a role in Russia’s calculus, not only during the annexation of Crimea and the escalation in Donbas but already in its 2008 war against Georgia, Putin’s first direct challenge to the normative security order, albeit not yet in Europe itself. Simply put: Weakness invites further aggression.

Putin has been successful in moving forward with his project to reestablish a sphere of Russia’s privileged interest in Eastern Europe in large part because the Western response has been weak and contradictory. With the United States distracted by the unraveling of the Middle East and the growing geostrategic competition with China, dealing with Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has become a European, or rather a German, project, with the United States offering support. Only recently has the U.S. begun to move beyond exercises, offering to move equipment to Poland and the Baltic States.

The overall level of military readiness in Europe to respond to a rapidly escalating crisis remains inadequate.

For the most part, the high-sounding rhetoric condemning Russia’s aggression has been accompanied by half-measures, in terms of economic sanctions, and quarter-measures or less when it comes to a military response. The so-called “reassurance” of NATO allies along the northeastern flank has so far resulted in limited military exercises, U.S. troop “drive-throughs” through the region back to Germany, and most recently in the decision to pre-position tanks and equipment for 5,000 troops.

While the West disarms

Since Berlin has declared from the start that “there is no military solution” in Ukraine, Kiev has been left in a strategic no-man’s land, where it is a matter of time before the combined economic and military factors bring about state failure and further partition. But without significant military assistance to Ukraine to arm its military, Russia can contemplate its next steps at leisure, whether that’s another move in Ukraine or stirring up ethnic tensions in the Baltics, either keeping current semi-frozen conditions in place or choosing to escalate. If the latter happens, this incursion into NATO territory would test the Alliance’s credibility at a time when consensus on allied solidarity is in doubt.

The risk of war in Europe has increased in parallel with the progressive demilitarization of the continent , both in terms of troops and equipment and the overall public outlook. Defense spending across the board has shrunk in Europe to 1.5 percent and continues to drop. Europe’s contribution to NATO’s military capability, which a decade ago was still at approximately half of its forces, today is at less than 25 percent and that figure too is dropping. Several countries in Europe, including some of the largest, have decimated their armor and seriously put into question their readiness to field more than a few thousand troops. The situation is even more dire when it comes to the high end of the spectrum , as well as logistics and transport. Today, the United States provides 70 percent of all NATO defense spending.

The process of Europe’s demilitarization over the last decade has coincided with Russia’s ambitious military modernization to the tune of $700 billion over 10 years, with targeted programs to introduce the next generation of armor, aircraft, and missiles and to modernize the nuclear forces. Although Russia’s expenditures cannot compare to the U.S. defense budget, they show an important paradigm shift when taken in the context of regional power balances in the Nordic-Baltic-Central European region.

Russia also enjoys the clear advantage of already having their programs in place, while the Scandinavians, Balts and Poles are now scrambling to plug the gaps in their air and missile defenses and anti-armor, all the while looking to the United States to provide reassurance and a modicum of deterrence against Russia.

Notwithstanding commendable efforts by the Poles and the Balts — Poland and Estonia are now among the five NATO countries including the United States that actually meet the 2 percent of GDP on defense pledge agreed upon at the last NATO summit — their new modernization commitments cannot offset the overall trend of continued decline in defense spending across Europe and NATO which, by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s own estimation, will shrink yet again from $942 billion in 2014 to $892 billion this year.

Defense spending across the board has shrunk in Europe to 1.5 percent and continues to drop.

The greatest risk of threat escalation remains in the Baltic States, which are still largely indefensible in an all-out conflict with Russia, and would even find it difficult to deal with a hybrid scenario in which Putin stirred up a Russian-speaking ethic enclave to test NATO’s cohesion and capability to respond. Moscow’s support for the simmering conflict in eastern Ukraine — into which it may launch another offensive — and bellicose rhetoric against the NATO alliance, intrusion into allied air space, and simulated practice bombing runs against Scandinavian and central European targets increased exponentially last year, combined with Russia’s not-at-all subtle nuclear blackmail against NATO, with threats to deploy additional nukes in Kaliningrad and the Western Military District.

Expecting the unexpected

It should also be clear by now that Vladimir Putin is determined to increase pressure regardless of economic sanctions and NATO countermoves because he senses the disunity among the allies, especially when it comes to Western Europeans coming to the aid of their new allies in the Baltic and Central European regions. The risk of a war in Europe is greater today than it was a year ago because the allies have not used the time since the Wales summit to send an unequivocal message of reinforcement and deterrence along NATO’s Russian flank. Putin is still confident the game of escalation and de-escalation is his to play.

It is ultimately academic to try to second-guess Putin’s ultimate goals, and debate whether he will be satisfied with the current territorial gains in Ukraine or move further. What we do know is that the power imbalance in the Nordic-Baltic-Central European region makes the threat of war real, and that without permanent U.S. and allied bases in countries along NATO’s frontier there can be no sufficient deterrence against a putative Russian move, whether hybrid or conventional.

To those among Europe’s political leadership and analytical community who continue to dismiss such an extreme scenario, consider how few believed it possible a year ago that Crimea would be invaded and absorbed into Russia, and Ukraine plunged into war. When it comes to Putin’s Russia today, expect the unexpected — or rather more of the same.

Andrew A. Michta is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The west European nations may have been disarming but the NATO budget is still about ten times that of Russia. The US defense budget has exploded. The US retracted from the1972 ABM treaty in 2002 and has been and still is placing ABM/BMD systems ever closer to Russia’s borders.

Though the EU has lowered it defense expenditures its European Neighbourhood Policy and its Common Defense and Security Policy have been pretty expansionist. The Ukraine association Agreement seems predominantly an expression of that. The EU even chose to ignore the existing trade links and trade agreements with Russia and Barosso refused to even discuss the obvious contradictions between the EU association agreement to be signed and the existing agreement.

Posted on 7/25/15 | 9:31 AM CEST

Gantal

“Putin has been successful in moving forward with his project to reestablish a sphere of Russia’s privileged interest in Eastern Europe in large part because the Western response has been weak and contradictory.”
Russia’s ‘sphere of influence’ has been steadily shrinking for 30 years. The EU’s putsch in Ukraine was designed to eliminate it completely.
How far must Russia retreat, how many of its natural allies must be destroyed before it puts its foot down?

Posted on 7/25/15 | 10:16 AM CEST

Michel Davidenkoff

Excellent article, which explains the real situation, especially in the Baltics. Just one question, professor: What about Greece? If Putin extends Russia’s sphere of influence to Athens ( and Piraeus harbor!), Russia would be able to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean and could cut off the oil supply routes!

Posted on 7/25/15 | 11:23 AM CEST

JanV

And since It is clear now that Germany was willing to leave Greece behind, good luck Baltic States…

Posted on 7/25/15 | 2:39 PM CEST

Susan

JanV – Germany saved Greece for second time. How did you figure that they were “willing to leave Greece behind”? You sound like a typical Russian paid troll…

Posted on 7/25/15 | 4:03 PM CEST

Susan

Gantal – Russia’s sphere of influence ‘has been shrinking” because of the Russian intimidation and aggression towards its neighbors. Remember that Russia still illegally occupies Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, the Kuril islands, and Eastern Ukraine…

Do you count the Ukraine as Russia’s “natural ally”? Is this why Russia illegally annexed Crimea after an illegal referendum and a Russian invasion? Is this how Russia treats her allies? Gee, no wonder Eastern Europe doesn’t like Russia…

Posted on 7/25/15 | 4:08 PM CEST

Halou

Assume the worst, prepare accordingly.

Several Russian lawmakers have already proposed reinforcing the terms of the old Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement by striking down Russia’s recognition of Baltic independence in 1991, ambassadors have started offering free Russian passports on the streets to anyone and everyone, and the ‘water tester in chief’ Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the one always rolled out to give voice to the more radical proposals while also maintaining the government’s plausible deniability, he has requested annexation ‘referendums’ in the Baltic nations to be backed up by Russian military force.

I find this article to be very dubious. First, Russia is militarily weak, their action in Ukraine is more a sign of weakness than strength, and already over extends them. Second, Putin isn’t an idiot – he knows that Russia’s future requires connections with the global economy. Attacking the Baltic states assures Russia would become a pariah state, and would risk nuclear war. For what? The cost and risks of such an attack are high, the potential gains virtually nil. This seems more like anachronistic Cold War thinking than any kind of serious analysis.

Posted on 7/25/15 | 7:13 PM CEST

sylvain

After the horror of WWII it is sweet and honourable to talk with Russia, to treat it as an equal partner and not to be crazy about war.

Posted on 7/25/15 | 7:56 PM CEST

Heinz

For an author that argued that NATO’s enlargement process (to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic) ought to advance civil-military reform in Eastern Europe and bring democratic civilian control over its military, I find the argument over European demilitarization a bit surprising. This is what democratic governments do. Decide what share of public revenues ought to be allocated to defense. If “money talks”, could the level of military spending end up being a more reliable democratic gauge of whatever risk elected officials and their constituents believe Russia may pose? The political equivalent of the efficient market hypothesis?

Posted on 7/25/15 | 8:15 PM CEST

Tony Clifton

The concept of “PEACE THOUGH STRENGTH” doesn’t jive with the Liberal Progressive establishment now in power in the U.S. and Western Europe who do not or worse, will not learn the historical lessens of the past hundred years.

This so-called “Post History” illusion is going to get us all killed. Putin is playing the game by the old rules and the old rule is “There are no rules” He is a hard ball gamer while our “so-called” leaders couldn’t even make the little league team in the game of Geo-politics. Bismark, Disraeli, Churchill would know exactly whats going on but not the dithering so-called leader of the free world, our “One red line after another” President Barack Obama.

He should have stayed on the South side of Chicago fighting the good fight instead of pretending to be a national leader. He is not an historian, nor is he a Geo-politician. He is a “Community organizer”. and That’s where he should have stayed. God help us all if, God forbid, Billary Clinton wins the next election. I didn’t misspell Billary. That would be substituting one blind fool for another and the one person on Earth who will fall to his knees with tears of Joy will be Vladimir Putin.

Posted on 7/25/15 | 8:15 PM CEST

Cpt.Obvious

sylvain:

After the horror of WWII it is sweet and honourable to talk with Russia, to treat it as an equal partner and not to be crazy about war.

Posted on 25/7/15 | 7:56 PM CEST

Agreed. Also check out George Friedman at the Chicago council on foreign relations.

Igor

Pro-western propaganda BS is so predictable so boring I can’t believe it actually exist in modern world and continue to influence people.
Andrew, just go in die already. I don’t want you to exist. Thank you.

Posted on 7/26/15 | 5:55 AM CEST

Leke

That article is LMAO.

Posted on 7/26/15 | 9:23 AM CEST

Fixpir

So, it is “Si vis pacem, para bellum” all over again. ?

Strange that the West leaders think that old wisdom is not true any more. Unfortunately, it is.

Posted on 7/26/15 | 9:24 AM CEST

Vladimir

Great idea to make Russia a world pariah under the pretext of what? Lie? Who threatened Russia? When? NOT sick delusions and the real facts? Why any conversation with Russia is to build a wall around Russia? Get a grip! 7000 people were killed in the Donbas and no country has forced UKRAINE to stop the GENOCIDE of RUSSIANS in DONBASS! And here Russia?

Posted on 7/26/15 | 9:26 AM CEST

Fixpir

@Gantal : Russia sphere of influence has not been shrinking from the evil manipulations of the West, the Muslim, the Chinese, God, the Capitalist, the Liberal, the Martian, or whoever. Anybody under Russia’s iron fist of influence have fled away running as fast as possible whenever they could.

That is something that Putin’s Russia has yet to understand, as should have understood Communist USSR, tsarist Russia before. You can conquer with weapons, you win with heart.

It seems that joining the ultra-corrupt, oligarch based feudal system that is the current Russian policy is no more enjoyable than joining the old USSR to anybody. It is up to the Russians to change this system into a more attractive political system.

Posted on 7/26/15 | 9:35 AM CEST

Marcel

A professor at a War College. That explains the warmongering tone.

Tell me again, who is it that illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Who is responsible for 500k deaths in Iraq and the complete destabilization of the region? And how come that Saudi Arabia and Islamic State have essentially the same religious ideology?

The warmongers from Washington just want to divide up Russia’s resources like they did in the early 1990s when the country was plundered by ‘well meaning’ westerners under the flag of the IMF (which is the #1 locust/vulture fund in the world).

@Tony
No, forbid that the warmongering GOP wins the next election giving us another braindead idiot like Bush jr (Scott Walker and Ted Cruz certainly look like they’re of the same idiot category). The GOP destroyed the US economy, destabilized an entire region in order to get more oil and is apparently salivating at the mouth for more wars. Fortunately the electorate of the racist party is declining and happily enough candidates in the clown care are merrily going around insulting women, latinos, blacks etc…

Look at how the USA is now plundering Ukraine by cozying up to its new oligarchs headed by the corrupt Poroshenko. Foreign companies get the resources and the utilities, and the middle class and poor in Ukraine get the austerity (sound familiar? Why yes, the same recipe as Greece and other countries plundered by the IMF).

Posted on 7/26/15 | 12:39 PM CEST

Alec

I must agree with the author: Russia is the only country on the planet that only needs under one hour to turn NATO countries into radioactive desert.
I must disagree with Mr. Michta that Putin is about to start a war in Europe. Mr. Michta is lying (for money).
Russia will not start a war in Europe. But I do not envy anybody who tries to start a war with Russia.

Posted on 7/26/15 | 4:34 PM CEST

Bob Lagaaij

Please, will you stop your cold war-hysteria? Mr Putin – I am not his true friend – is not a stupid man and he never – never, I assure you! – will enter a NATO-country. O.k., he’s a former KGB-agent – but the KGB wasn’t stupid at all… – and doesn’t trust ,,the West”, but entering one of the Baltic states would be a bridge too far. A bit rumour from Russia…that will do to make us anxious.He’s just playing a game; like we do….

Posted on 7/26/15 | 7:26 PM CEST

Michael P. Keleher

This is absolutely crazy neocon nonsense. Beyond crazy – naked fear and warmongering. ConsortiumNews, VoltaireNet, Antiwar, GlobalResearch, and a small handful of other alt news sources, whatever their own biases, are excellent at deconstructing The Empire’s lies.

one might do well to consider what the west decided to do when the iron curtain fell – absolutely rob/rape Russian wealth, to the benefit of a small handful of {gasp! the truth!} mostly Jewish oligarchs:

Funny that the same is happening in Ukraine which is an oligarchical kleptocracy well described in “1984”.

Posted on 7/26/15 | 8:14 PM CEST

Dr No

The biggest threat against Europe is our own Cultural Marxist “leaders” and the mass-immigration they’ve brought on our countries.

Putin is the least of our worries. But the Americans are quite happy to see Europe weaken and divided by immigration so they will continue to threaten with the Russia con.

Posted on 7/27/15 | 2:10 PM CEST

Loachdriver

A wounded in action veteran of the Second Indochina War & one with a son in the armed forces I’m not at all pleased with hearing drums for war pounding . The Russian/Ukraine tussle is a European problem to be avoided by the USA; lazy and gutless Europeans shouldn’t count on American boys once again being sent to their rescue.

But if war comes, it won’t totally dismay me if submarine launched missiles obliterate Washington, D.C. Perhaps then we will move our capitol somewhere sensible, such as St. Louis, Omaha or Kansas City

Posted on 7/27/15 | 3:32 PM CEST

Kurt NY

Russia sees NATO/EU expansion eastward as an existential threat. It is no coincidence that its gravest violations have been against Ukraine and Georgia, the two nations that were looking to move westward. So, if Russia sees NATO as its enemy, a strike in the Baltic states, if successful and unanswered, could cause it to fracture and disintegrate, leaving it facing a number of smaller states of lesser capacity rather than a superior unified force. At some point, the prospect has to seem tempting, made even more so by the well known aversion of most NATO states to come to the military aid of the Baltic states if attacked, despite their treaty commitments.

Of course, such an incursion would be risky in the extreme. But what better time to test the waters than with an ineffectual, indecisive ditherer in the Oval Office cutting defense, European defense readiness at an all time low, and European public opinion divided?

Posted on 7/27/15 | 9:02 PM CEST

DeStefano

I’ve just spent most of June in Lithuania and out of curiosity, conducted an informal poll about the Lithuanians’ perception of the likelihood of a Russian invasion (or intent to do so).

Half snickered, the other half guffawed. A few even suggested that their president wasn’t exactly playing with a full deck. Time to throw the fearmongering into a higher gear.

Posted on 7/28/15 | 12:52 AM CEST

Ivan Fihtin

Not quite right to talk about the sphere of influence. The scope of investment will be more accurate. Russia invested money in these regions, giving loans. Comes UES conclude bilateral agreements, Russia says go without you face it. Okay, Eat. A Russian hot pepper you will enclose.

Posted on 7/28/15 | 7:40 AM CEST

John Samford

There is always a military solution. Those that claim otherwise are fools. What they should claim is that sometimes the military solution creates more problems that are worse then the problem solved by the military. That is normal. One of the first things taught in any systems course is that ALL solutions create more problems. The goal of good systems work is to control future problems with current solutions.
In the case of Pootie, there is a better way. Pootie’s rational for invading Ukraine was that the overthrow of Yanukovych negated the treaty of Budapest. If so, then the coup of 1991 that overthrew the Soviet Union negated the UN Treaty signed by the Soviet Union.
So Russia is No longer part of the UN. By Pooties logic. Toss Russia off the Security Council Permanent Seat and put that seat up for a vote. Then, because frontal assaults suck, The USA needs to withdraw from the NPT. That takes 6 months. During that 6 months Russia can withdraw ALL of their troops and weapons from Ukraine and Georgia. If they don’t the USA sells nukes to Poland, Finland, the Baltic States and any other former Soviet colonies that want them.
These actions will get Pootie an extended tour of the Gulags. China will go along. If they don’t we sell nukes to Taiwan, S. Korea and the Philippines. Maybe Vietnam too. Nothing like a potential conquest having nukes to dampen the ardor of a wanna be Hitler.

Each country in EU is using less land less on military. Everybody can find out of that and the reason is that they think even if one country is small, together there big. Let´s say that each country only have 5-9 tanks left in 2025. Then it dosen´t matter who help who then others will be a lot bigger. Not many see the big picture but making an army smaller and smaller one day will have the effect somebody want to try something. – This is not a tinfoil hat talk but still. If a “man” knows there none or almost little risk then why not try if you feel better equipped?

Posted on 7/29/15 | 6:37 AM CEST

observer48

The author is right. Russia has to be contained, as it has never in history negotiated in good faith, save the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the Soviet Russia faithfully fulfilled until the bitter end of the Hitler-Stalin friendship in June 1941.

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM.

Posted on 7/29/15 | 12:08 PM CEST

Danram

NATO is currently being led by weak, naive, and indecisive people, chief among them Barack Obama and Angela Merkel. Had it not been for some fool firing off a missile and bringing down a jetliner in August 2014, the economic sanctions levied against Russia for its adventures in Crimea and Donbas would still be laughably weak.

One can only pray that things can be held together until January 2017 when a new U.S. “Commander-In-Chief” will assume office. Even if it’s Hillary Clinton … and I hope to God it isn’t …. it will be a marked improvement over the weakness, waffling, and hand-wringing of the Obama administration.

Posted on 7/29/15 | 3:00 PM CEST

Evanlarkspur

“Alec”,
Your own Russian internal assessment admits that you will lose any all out war with the West in six hours. Yes, six hours. So why don’t you get back within the borders of your nation that you agreed to under the Helsinki Final act, and stop terrorizing your neighbors. We grow weary of you.

Posted on 7/29/15 | 11:19 PM CEST

Lev Havryliv

Russian military aggression against Ukraine poses a serious threat to the security and stability of all of Europe.

This makes it the business of the U.S. Ukraine urgently needs Western defensive military assistance such as anti-tank weaponry. There is evidence that the pro-Russia forces are gearing up for further military incursions into Ukraine.

Posted on 7/30/15 | 5:02 AM CEST

caaps02

“Risk” of war in Europe. Ukraine is in Europe and there already is war in Europe. The author, like so many western writers, describes what is happening in eastern Ukraine as “a conflict” and not as what it is: a Russian invasion.

Posted on 8/3/15 | 12:54 PM CEST

h2ppyme

Estonians are not Balts though. Only Latvians and Lithuanians are Balts.

Posted on 8/12/15 | 9:45 AM CEST

Serge

Last time I checked there were numerous bases of US on Russian borders and none Russian bases on US border. American worries about Russian aggression seem to me like having ulterior motives of cutting Russia away form Europe and solidifying US military presence there.

Posted on 8/13/15 | 9:03 PM CEST

Serge

“Evanlarkspur” Many before you made similar assumptions and all ended with their heads up their back side. There was not a single case when West was able to win military against Russia. Mind you, but Berlin was taken twice by Russians and Paris once.
Your underestimation of Russian military capabilities is typical of bean counter and armchair general.
Within Russian vicinity Russia will stop and destroy any opponent including very pathetic for so called super power half million US land forces.